Something to think about this weekend.
BBC News: Brown Urges Embryo Support; 18 May <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7406773.stm>
BBC Health: Q&A Hybrid Embryos; 19 May <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6233415.stm>
BBC News: MPs Back Embryo Hybrid Research; 19 May <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7407589.stm>
____
A touch-and-go write-up of the 'Chimera Debate'
____
The planned Bill and subsequent amendments to the HFEA (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) to allow for the cultivation and use of Chimera hybrids in genetic research has sparked an intense bioethical-legal debate. In essence, a animal + human embryo will be created, for research purposes and the UK Parliament is lobbying to pass a Bill (Bills - i.e. a proposed law. Once tabled and passed, it will become an Act) on this.
I did a short topic on this during my Philosophy classes last year. If I recall correctly, John was all for allowing the use of Chimera hybrids for purposes of genetic research. And I do agree with the use of such hybrids purely for research purposes.
"What are chimeras?", some may ask. In essence, or rather in Wikipedia terms
"... a chimera is an animal (in zoological terms) that has two or more different populations of genetically distinct cells that originated in different zygotes.
Chimeras are formed from four parent cells (two fertilized eggs or early embryos fuse together) or from three parent cells (a fertilized egg is fused with an unfertilized egg or a fertilized egg is fused with an extra sperm). Each population of cells keeps its own character and the resulting animal is a mixture of mis-matched parts. An analogy is two jigsaw puzzles cut using an identical cutter, but with different pictures. A single puzzle can be made out of the mis-matched parts, but the completed puzzle will show parts of both pictures..."
What are the concerns about the work?
Opponents say this is tampering with nature and is unethical. Critics say they are repulsed by the idea and there must be no creation of an animal-human hybrid. It is already illegal to implant human-animal embryos in the womb or bring them to term.Exerpt from BBC Health: Q&A Hybrid Embryos
But then, IF the HFEA is amended to allow for the use of such chimera hybrids, there would definitely be parties who are bound to find loop-holes within the legislation and perhaps attempt to push the limits. This poses many dangers; most strikingly the haunting possibility of the birth of a human + animal progeny.
How do we (and will we ever be able to) effect a successful mechanism of control over these mad-scientists???"We think there is nothing illegal, immoral or unethical about this. While we understand the concerns, we think they are largely founded on misinformation. People think we are generating some sort of hybrid animal. This is just cells, just for science. No animal is ever going to be created."
Will they NOT be tempted to further push the boundaries???
____
Further exerpts from BBC Health: Q&A Hybrid Embryos; 19th May 2008:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6233415.stm
What does the law say?
Although ministers felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 needed updating as science had moved on significantly, they were initially cool on the idea of creating human-animal embryos.
However, they bowed to pressure from scientists, who argued a ban would hamper medical research.
In addition, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee carried out an inquiry into the proposals and concluded that the creation of hybrid embryos was necessary for research and that there should not be a complete ban.
(I agree, but there is definitely a pressing need for a strict enforcement mechanism.)
A draft bill published in May 2007 allows for the creation of human embryos that have been physically mixed with one or more animal cells.
Will the bill become law?
(If the House is able to by-pass and find a way through the religious oppositions, the Bill would certainly be good law in no time. But, how would one tackle such highly sensitive issues? There are already strong oppositions going against the use of human embryos for research (mainly based on arguments that it is wrong to create an embryo knowingly that it wouldn't be afforded any opportunity of growing past the 10 day (or is it 14 day) stage, and now, creation of hybrid embryos? Are they any less human than 'normal embryos'?)
Opponents are determined to block the proposals. Several leading members of the Catholic Church have described them as immoral.
In his Easter sermon, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, leader of the church in Scotland, described the legislation as a "monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life".
A significant number of MPs, including several Catholic members of the Cabinet, are also reported to have serious concerns about the legislation, leading to speculation of high profile resignations...
Some 200 medical charities have urged MPs to support legislation allowing the creation of animal-human embryos. And Labour peer and fertility expert Lord Winston has accused the church of misleading the public over the issue.
____
Question:
Is there really a need for the creation of what some term as "Frankenstein Hybrids"? Or would we be able to find a better ethical alternative to this?
In whatever decision that will be made, there is a need to thread with utmost caution.
Perhaps, the pressing consideration would be, if we allow for the creation of Chimeras now, how and where do we possibly draw the line in the future? There is a danger of the opening of floodgates and a free-fall to oblivion. And mad scientists would be keen on capitalising on loopholes and if not, finding justifications for their reasons for e.g. going beyond the 14 day permitted limit.
How do we control????
-LV-
*more answers to the above question in my new post. Off to read now!
